MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164043352 · doi:10.1086/653706

Association between Breast Milk Erythropoietin and Reduced Risk of Mother‐to‐Child Transmission of HIV

2010· article· en· W2164043352 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne E Arsenault, Aimee L. Webb, Irene Koulinska, Said Aboud, Wafaie Fawzi, Eduardo Villamor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsErythropoietinBreast milkOdds ratioMedicineBreast feedingProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalRisk factorBreastfeedingPhysiologyPregnancyObstetricsTransmission (telecommunications)ImmunologyInternal medicinePediatricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the prospective associations between breast milk concentrations of erythropoietin, a factor with trophic effects on infant gut epithelia, and the risk of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through breast-feeding in a study of 59 MTCT cases and 116 controls nested within a cohort of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected Tanzanian women. Controls were matched to cases on the basis of the time from birth when the breast milk sample was collected. The risk of MTCT was inversely related to breast milk erythropoietin concentration (adjusted odds ratio for highest vs lowest erythropoietin concentration tertile, 0.34 [95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.82]; P = .02). These results suggest a protective effect of breast milk erythropoietin against MTCT.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207